The Way We Live Now: 4-25-99 - The Ethicist; War Games

By Randy Cohen

Published: April 25, 1999

I play board games depicting historical battles. It seems like innocent fun to command Macedonian forces against the Persian Army, but what about commanding the Germans in a W.W.II simulation -- and really playing to win? Are some subjects above a recreational pastime? -- Ananda Gupta, Washington

While such play is not unethical -- no one is hurt by your hobby -- it may be unseemly, depending on your relationship to the historical events you invoke. Few would object to a museum that displays the artifacts and conveys the enormity of slavery; most would be appalled by a roller coaster called Runaway Slave!

''There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book,'' wrote Oscar Wilde. ''Books are well written, or badly written.'' He might have also been speaking about readers or game players. Some who are absorbed with the study of war pursue genuine understanding; some are merely sadists. That is, games are well played or badly played. If your simulated leadership of the German general staff cultivates an intense focus on strategy and tactics, you are, in effect, playing chess and offending no one. If you are wallowing in death, destruction and human misery as a form of recreation, you may have personal problems. Or you are a development executive at Fox television. Either way, you might want to re-examine your definition of ''entertainment.''

My 11-year-old daughter has a lovely smile, but her dentist says her slightly crooked teeth could become a problem. He prescribes braces. She wants them, too. I can't help thinking that this has less to do with preventive medicine than with preying on kids' insecurity. Even without the several-thousand-dollar price tag, that seems pretty unethical. But can I hold my daughter to the same opinion?

Many a father who stoutly resists Rogaine for his own barren pate swiftly capitulates to braces for his beloved child, no matter how slight the need. Obviously there's no ethical question if you're straightening her teeth to avoid actual dental distress now or years later. But what about the rest of the times? Such procedures have a troubling tendency to redefine the standards of attractiveness for everyone. As cosmetic medicine and dentistry become more available, all teeth are suddenly too crooked, all faces need lifting, all breasts are either too big or too small. Ordinary attractiveness becomes something achievable only by medical intervention. This is bad for the millions of people who end up judging themselves by those Procrustean standards, but great for doctors, dentists and Cosmopolitan magazine.

At a moment when growing numbers of people pay thousands of dollars to have the hair zapped off their legs by beauticians wielding surgical lasers, however, it can be tough to draw a sharp distinction between cosmetic surgery and all the other measures that people take to improve their appearances. But try this simple test: Does it require anesthesia? If a beauty treatment renders you unconscious, you might want to reconsider.

Happily, it is not just beauty but also comfort that these new surgeries have redefined, and often for the better. People used to regard losing most of their teeth as a fact of life that only the fortunate few escaped. No longer.

So err on the side of your daughter's happiness and get her the braces if you can afford them. (She won't even need local anesthesia.) By the time she's old enough to be bullied into a face lift, she'll be mature enough, and confident enough, to make that decision for herself.

Do you have ethical queries that you need answered? Send them to ethicist@nytimes.com or The Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 229 West 43d Street, New York, N.Y. 10036.